The use of artificial intelligence in conflict is no longer a hypothetical question, but an operational reality on modern battlefields. As states across the globe are rapidly investing in AI-driven military technologies in pursuit of greater speed, precision, and strategic advantages, ethical dilemmas that once existed only in academic and policy discussions are now emerging in conflict zones. Russia’s war in Ukraine has become one of the clearest examples of how quickly warfare is evolving toward weapons and systems capable of independently navigating, identifying, and engaging targets with reduced human input. Ethical concerns surrounding lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) are no longer future considerations, but immediate challenges confronting modern warfare today.
While AI-driven weapons undoubtedly offer military advantages, they also raise serious concerns regarding the lack of human involvement in decisions involving lethal force. Therefore, the central challenge states now face is no longer how AI can play a role in warfare, but how states can preserve meaningful human judgment, accountability, and moral responsibility as lethal decision-making becomes increasingly automated.
The appeal of AI weaponry in times of conflict is clear. Autonomous systems can process vast amounts of data at speeds that would be impossible for humans, improve reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities, reduce combatants’ exposure to dangerous environments, and assist armed groups in making quick operational decisions. In the context of modern warfare, where speed and efficiency are often key advantages, AI technology is becoming increasingly attractive. As seen in Ukraine, the battlefield is seeing an increase in AI-assisted drones capable of scoping out and targeting enemy threats during battle. Operators on both sides routinely face communication signals between themselves and their drones being jammed, limiting their ability to control these systems in real time. In this type of situation, autonomy provides more than just a technological advantage; it becomes necessary to let drones continue operating even when communication with human operators is disrupted.
However, warfare is not merely a technical or mathematical pursuit; battlefield environments are increasingly shaped by unpredictability, emotion, fear, surrender, and of course, moral judgment. In contemporary conflicts, the rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) exist to create standards to limit the suffering and damage of armed conflict. However, the realities of war are unpredictable, events evolve, civilians become indistinguishable, and split-second decisions are made. These realities often result in the rules of IHL being neglected. In these scenarios, where situational awareness and context are needed to make decisions, it is human soldiers who are best able to evaluate a given scenario and exercise restraint and ethical reasoning to determine what the best course of action is, not machines. Although AI weapons may be able to identify patterns, calculate probabilities, and process information faster than humans, they are unable to understand human suffering or use moral judgment. Machines cannot fully comprehend the consequences of lethal force, particularly in unpredictable battlefield conditions where context matters just as much as technical precision. This is where the ethical dilemma surrounding LAWS becomes significant: while AI may increase operational efficiency, human judgment must remain part of decisions involving lethal force because restraint, accountability, and moral responsibility cannot be reliably left entirely to machines. Therefore, efficiency alone cannot serve as the foundation for ethical warfare.
Ethical concerns include not only the fact that these weapons are autonomous, but also the possibility that their use will gradually become increasingly normalized. What is currently occurring as partial autonomy during times of operational necessity may evolve into a reduced human involvement in more and more lethal strikes and decisions. Part of the danger for societies across the globe lies in the appeal provided by these weapons, as they allow humans to distance themselves from the moral responsibility inherent in taking a human life.
Although AI may improve operational efficiency, states must ensure that human accountability and ethical responsibility remain central to all decisions involving lethal force. This fact must be at the forefront of our minds as these dilemmas are no longer purely hypothetical. The current laws of armed conflict were created in regard to the decisions made by humans and their use of traditional weapons systems, not developing technologies that increasingly seek to automate this process. IHL does, however, consider whether the use of force during times of conflict complies with the principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality. Within this framework, the legal issue surrounding LAWS is not whether these weapons should be allowed, but whether their use can realistically comply with these principles during warfare.
For autonomous weapons, the principles of distinction and proportionality become particularly difficult to uphold, as they require parties in a conflict to differentiate between combatants and civilians and avoid strikes where civilian harm outweighs the anticipated military advantage. In order to uphold these principles, those using force need to understand the many nuanced conditions of combat, which require real-time interpretation, restraint, assessment, and frequently, reassessment. This can include situations involving civilians unexpectedly entering combat zones, soldiers surrendering, or even individuals who are acting with fear rather than hostile intent. Because proper compliance with these principles depends on context-based judgment, increasing automation risks creating an environment where humans become removed from positions of accountability or moral responsibility for the deaths and destruction resulting from the use of force. If autonomous weapons misidentify a target or commit harm they shouldn’t, who is responsible? Who can be blamed, or rather, who will take the blame?
As warfare becomes increasingly automated, preserving clear human accountability may become one of the defining ethical and political challenges of armed conflict. While AI weapons continue to evolve and find themselves on the battlefield, societies must ensure that these advancements don’t replace or come at the expense of human judgment, accountability, and moral responsibility. Battlefield realities emerging in Ukraine suggest that autonomous systems may become operationally necessary during battle when human control cannot be guaranteed.
States therefore face a defining challenge as they enter the next phase of technological advancements in armed conflict: alongside building up their arsenal’s strength and efficiency, they need to ensure human oversight remains central in lethal decision-making. This will require states and intergovernmental organizations to establish and adhere to clear frameworks surrounding lethal autonomous weapons and their usage. UN member states and NATO allies should work toward creating common international standards for the deployment of LAWS, particularly when it comes to accountability, transparency, and civilian protection. This can include expanding Article 36 weapons reviews under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to better assess whether autonomous weapons are able to comply with the principles of IHL.
Ultimately, the ethical and legal challenges surrounding lethal autonomous weapons systems return to the same central concern: how to preserve human judgment and accountability as warfare becomes increasingly automated. AI may assist military decision-making by improving speed, surveillance, and operational efficiency, but these advantages cannot replace the responsibility required with any use of lethal force. Clear international standards, stronger legal accountability, and policies guaranteeing meaningful human control are therefore necessary to ensure that autonomous systems remain tools of human decision-making rather than substitutes for it. Without these safeguards, the normalization of autonomous weapons could weaken the connection between human responsibility and the use of force. At its core, no matter how advanced warfare becomes, the decision to take a human life must remain firmly human.
Photo: “Silhouette of Flying Drone at Sunset” (2023), by Kaan Durmuş via Pexels. Licensed under the Pexels License.
Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NATO Association of Canada.
